no infinity

[Koen1]

Idk but I thought it was pretty basic to define in which system
we're going to work before we start discussing the meaning of the variables...?
What seems to be happening here is a discussion of whether or not a
system of infinity maths accords with a system of integer maths, aka
natural numbers theory?

Isn't that a bit like firt saying that swimming and writing are two completely different
things, and then later trying to prove that writing is not possible when you swim,
or that swimming is not possible while writing?
Ok, the analogy is a bit flawed but I think you'll see what I mean?

And the argument that infinity cannot be real because nothing has ever been observed
that is proven to be infinite seems like an invalid argument for two reasons:
1) the basic logic premisse, basically most easily put
"We have not yet seen any swans that are not white, therefore all swans must be white,
therefore black swans do not exist." is false reasoning. There may well be black swans that
we just haven't seen yet but may see in the future.
2) How would you prove something is infinite when the natural world as we know and experience
it appears to us to use a system of natural numbers aka positive integers?
How would a fish prove the existance of salt crystals if he spends his life under water where salt
crystals never form? Ok, again flawed analogy but perhaps you'll get the point.

That said, I think but can of course not prove that infinity math is real, just like imaginary numbers
math and irreal numbers math is real. It can be used to describe and calculate things that have
direct connections to physcal implementations in our reality.
But like imaginary numbers we can't find a tangiable, physical example of a measure of units
that equates to an imaginary, irreal, or infinite number in our world of real and natural integers.

A bit like the total impossibility to determine both location and momentum of a quantum particle,
while in our everyday, physical, macroscopic world it is damn well possible to determine both
location and momentum of a car, airplane, meterorite, whatever.
Big difference. Does that make quantumphysics untrue?
Or do we simply have to admit that there is no scale- nor system- invariant measurement system,
and possibly also no scale- nor system- invariant maths?

Like I said, I don't know.

[WilbyInebriated]

Accepted.

I do have a talent for coming across as an arse without knowing it.

Speaking of Cantor and infinity, I attached a comic you might find amusing.

LMFAO... take me to the aleph garden 
thats hilarious, first time seeing that cartoon. thanks for the laugh in my day.

[ScaryTruth]

i definitly dont see infinity in there ...do you?  

Infinity, by definition, regards any aspect of space or time that cannot be measured. When the boundries of the universe are unknown, if any at all, that is infinity. Measuring or knowing a point in the future when time stops is equally unknowable, therefore infinite. And if ever a smallest point in nature or particle of matter is ostensibly determined, it will be possible to divide it further, if not physically, certainly philosophically.

Much as science struggles to explain myriad fundamental aspects, properties and realities that surround us in the macroscopic and microscopic realms, what science does not know nor can explain is quite a lot. The classic dilemma - that more answers lead to more questions.

Quote of the day:  "Infinity is a really, really long time - especially toward the end."

[pauldude000]

Idk but I thought it was pretty basic to define in which system
we're going to work before we start discussing the meaning of the variables...?
What seems to be happening here is a discussion of whether or not a
system of infinity maths accords with a system of integer maths, aka
natural numbers theory?

Isn't that a bit like firt saying that swimming and writing are two completely different
things, and then later trying to prove that writing is not possible when you swim,
or that swimming is not possible while writing?
Ok, the analogy is a bit flawed but I think you'll see what I mean?

And the argument that infinity cannot be real because nothing has ever been observed
that is proven to be infinite seems like an invalid argument for two reasons:
1) the basic logic premisse, basically most easily put
"We have not yet seen any swans that are not white, therefore all swans must be white,
therefore black swans do not exist." is false reasoning. There may well be black swans that
we just haven't seen yet but may see in the future.
2) How would you prove something is infinite when the natural world as we know and experience
it appears to us to use a system of natural numbers aka positive integers?
How would a fish prove the existance of salt crystals if he spends his life under water where salt
crystals never form? Ok, again flawed analogy but perhaps you'll get the point.

That said, I think but can of course not prove that infinity math is real, just like imaginary numbers
math and irreal numbers math is real. It can be used to describe and calculate things that have
direct connections to physcal implementations in our reality.
But like imaginary numbers we can't find a tangiable, physical example of a measure of units
that equates to an imaginary, irreal, or infinite number in our world of real and natural integers.

A bit like the total impossibility to determine both location and momentum of a quantum particle,
while in our everyday, physical, macroscopic world it is damn well possible to determine both
location and momentum of a car, airplane, meterorite, whatever.
Big difference. Does that make quantumphysics untrue?
Or do we simply have to admit that there is no scale- nor system- invariant measurement system,
and possibly also no scale- nor system- invariant maths?

Like I said, I don't know.

I know this is a really old post to which I am replying, but I thought this was worthy of noting.


The ultimate problem with infinity, in a nutshell, is that it is purely a logical construct.


I can travel at 60 mph over an infinity of points only due to the fact that all logical constructs are themselves constrained to reality. Reality does not change for a logical construct. When trying to prove the validity of a logical construct of any sort, I must first demonstrate it's validity and applicability to the real world. Infinity fails this most basic of principles, as it can neither be measured, approached, or demonstrated in any form. The supposed restrictions which it should place are absent. For instance Wilby's bullet argument.


If infinity as a real world constant or ratio did exist, I could not trace a circle, walk a line, or measure anything, as all of these would require infinite time to accomplish, having to traverse an infinite distance representing an infinite number of points. If there is an infinite division between two microseconds, then time itself cannot pass.


I did not choose this subject lightly, nor broach it carelessly without first examining it closely. In all logical cases infinity invariably fails. It is a pretty notion, but it is science fiction, and not demonstrable science fact. The concept was derived without the application of either critical thought or scientific methodology.


It is an illusion.

[Gwandau]

This could easily be considered a philosophical discussion, if you see where I'm heading...

Inifinity would not be infinite if it did not include it's own exclusion. 

Gwandau